BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 309/2006 Filed on 22.11.2006

Dated : 30.10.2009

Complainant:

Ravikrishnan. N.R, N.S.P 72, N.S.P Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

Opposite parties:

1. Proprietor, Maya Electronics, Opp: Gandhari Amman Kovil Road, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Kankei Relationship Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., B-301, Dipti Classic, 32/34, Suren Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400 093.

This O.P having been heard on 30.09.2009, the Forum on 30.10.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant purchased a Penta Cool refrigerator manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 18.08.2005 from the 1^st opposite party. The fridge had manufacturing defect, but they refused to replace it with a new one. So he filed O.P 328/2005 before this Forum. That case was settled between the parties. Accordingly on the instruction of the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party replaced the fridge with another model of lesser price and difference in the price amounting to Rs. 1,000/- was paid to the complainant. After few months the second fridge also became defective. The defects were rectified by the opposite parties, but after a month the light of the fridge was not working and the compressor became noisy. The present complaint is filed under the said circumstances. As per the complainant, the opposite party wilfully supplied a defective fridge to the complainant because the complainant had filed the O.P 328/05 against the opposite party for that vengeance. The complainant prays for refund of Rs. 9,500/-, the price of the refrigerator with 6% interest and for compensation and costs.

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed their version in this case. The main contention of the 1^st opposite party, the dealer is that the complainant accepted the second fridge after checking the condition of the fridge and he was fully aware that the fridge was a defect free one. The 1^st opposite party also stated that it is necessary to the proper adjudication of the case to implead the authorized service centre as a party in this case. The 2^nd opposite party, the Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company admitted that in response to the complaint vide O.P 328/05 he replaced the fridge alleged to have been defective. New fridge was provided on the suggestion made by the Forum. The 2^nd opposite party states that the petitioner has not registered any complaint to the respondent's service centre. 2^nd opposite party also stated that their company is a famous reputed firm in India and there is no such intention to ill treat or to annoy the petitioner. The fridge was selected by the petitioner.

The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He also produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. There was no oral evidence on the side of opposite parties.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- To prove the contentions of the complainant, the complainant has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the bill issued by the authorized service centre 'Smart Care' to the complainant for Rs. 500/- as repairing charge dated 09.05.2008. Ext. P2 is the bill dated 18.12.2008 issued by the service centre to the complainant for Rs. 1,650/- as repair charge. Ext. P3 is the Service Card. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties wilfully supplied a defective fridge to the complainant. The main defect of the refrigerator was the light of the fridge was not functioning and the compressor became noisy. The complainant stated that after a few months the new fridge became defective. In this type of cases expert opinion is necessary to ascertain the defects. The complainant did not apply for appointing an expert commission to evaluate the alleged manufacturing defect. But in this case the opposite parties have not adduced strong objections in the version about the defects. The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum one month after the purchasing date of the refrigerator i.e, within warranty period. And moreover at the time of trial complainant and 2^nd opposite party jointly filed a compromise petition before this Forum. And thereafter the 2^nd opposite party did not turn up to execute the terms and conditions of the compromise. We are of the view that this compromise petition is the admission of the fault of the opposite parties. As per this compromise petition the 2^nd opposite party agrees to replace a new refrigerator and in that transaction they will deduct an amount of Rs. 6,325/-. And they also agree to give warranty for that refrigerator. On the basis of available records, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. And there is no cause for not allowing the complaint. The two refrigerators supplied by the opposite parties are defective. As per the complainant the price of the refrigerator was Rs. 9,500/-. The opposite party has no objection regarding the price of the fridge. The complainant has been using the fridge since 2006 onwards. As per the complainant, the fridge has been repaired several times in this period. As per Exts. P1 & P2 he had paid Rs. 1,650/- + Rs. 500/-= Rs. 2150/- as repairing charge. All these go to prove that the refrigerator had defects and it developed within one month of its purchase and had to be repaired on various occasions. We have understood the difficulties and inconveniences of the complainant with the defective fridge. In the interest of justice and the available evidence on record, we allow the complaint.

In the result, the 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 8,000/- (after deducting Rs. 1,500/- towards depreciation from Rs. 9,500/-) to the complainant with 6% annual interest from 23.11.2006 i.e; the date of complaint till the date of realisation. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings. After the compliance of the order the 2^nd opposite party is directed to take the refrigerator from the custody of the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of October 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 309/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Ravikrishnan. N.R

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Bill dated 09.05.2008 issued by Smart Care to complainant

for Rs. 500/-.

P2 - Bill dated 18.12.2008 for Rs. 1,650/- issued by Smart Care.

P3 - Service Card.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT